IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3597 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SRI NEKKANTI APPA RAO SON OF NEKKANTI VEERANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SRI NEKKANTI VEERANNA @ NEKKANTI BABANNA SON OF LATE APPA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. SRI NEKKANTI SATHYANARAYANA SON OF LATE NEKKANTI VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF THYAVANIGE CHOWDAMMA CAMP THYAVANIGE POST CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 544.
(BY SRI SIDDESWARA N K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE CITY-577 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE-577 002.
3. THE TAHSILDAR CHANNAGIRI TALUK CHANNAGIRI-577 213.
4. SRI NEKKANTI VEERANNA SON OF LATE APPA RAO SINCE DEAD BY HIS ONE OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT. KANTE PARVATHA VARDHANAMMA WIFE OF ABBANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SRI NEKKANTI SUBBA RAO SON OF LATE NEKKANTI VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 6. SRI NEKKANTI ADINARAYANA ... APPELLANTS SON OF LATE NEKKANTI VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF THYAVANIGE CHOWDAMMA CAMP THYAVANIGE POST CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 544 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. R ANITHA, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3 RESPONDENT No.4 IS SERVED RESPONDENT Nos.5 AND 6 ARE NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 31.05.2017) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.22605/2012 DATED 25/08/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.22605 of 2012, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. The petitioners filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to quash the order dated 18.5.2012 passed by the 1st respondent in case No.RA/CR- 20/2009-10. It is claimed that the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the sons of late Nekkanti Veeranna. Smt. Kante Parvatha Vardhanamma is the sister of petitioners and daughter of Nekkanti Veeranna. Smt. Sathyavathi is the mother of petitioners, respondent Nos.5 an 6 and Smt. Kante Parvatha Vardhanamma. It was further stated that Smt. Sathyavathi purchased 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy. No.76/6 of Thyavanage village, Basavapatna Hobli, Chennagiri Taluk, on 11.2.1971. Nekkanti Veeranna and his four sons partitioned the joint family properties on 5.9.1984 under a registered partition deed. Thereafter, on 25.6.1986, Smt. Satyavati sold the land in Sy. No.76/6 in favour of her husband Nekkanti Veeranna. The partition deed was amended by an unregistered document. Based on such document, mutation was changed in the joint names of sons of Nekkanti Veeranna. Nekkanti Veeranna filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner challenging the change of mutation entries. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 11.5.2009. Against the said order, Nekkanti Veeranna preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner under section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. During the pendency of the appeal, Nekkanti Veeranna died on 6.2.2011. On his death, the daughter of Nekkanti Veeranna, Smt. Kante Parvatha Vardhanamma, filed an application under Order XXII Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure to come on record as legal representative of Nekkanti Veeranna. It was the case of the petitioners that without allowing the application to come on record as legal representative, the 1st respondent allowed the appeal and directed the Tahsildar, Chennagiri to effect Katha in favour of the appellant i.e., Smt. Kante Parvatha Vardhanamma. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.230 of 2011 binds the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities are bound by law to record the names of successful parties. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners are in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed the order and the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner would not have allowed the appeal. More over, the 1st respondent has committed procedural irregularity and without passing an order on the application filed by the legal representative to come on record, he would not have allowed the appeal itself. Further it is contended that the Assistant Commissioner had rightly rejected the appeal noticing that the appellant was the signatory to the unregistered partition deed. Hence, the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition by observing that the entry of the name of the 4th respondent could be subject to the result of O.S. No.230 of 2011, which is in accordance with law and needs no interference.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the detailed order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is on record that the daughter of deceased Nekkanti Veeranna has already filed O.S. No.230/2011 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chennagiri, for partition and separate possession of equal 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The suit is pending consideration. The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the civil rights of the parties. The partition was effected between Nekkanti Veeranna and his four sons under a registered partition deed dated 5.9.1984. Thereafter, by an unregistered document, the partition deed was amended and based on the amended unregistered partition deed, the joint names of sons of Nekkanti Veeranna were entered. On questioning the same, the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal holding that the appellant Nekkanti Veeranna was a signatory to the unregistered amended partition. 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner, on appeal, allowed the appeal holding that the parties have to approach Civil Court for adjudication of their dispute. Whenever a dispute with regard to entries would arise, the proper course is to approach the competent Civil Court. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of this Court in case of C.N. NAGENDRA SINGH VS. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2750 has rightly held that for adjudication of civil disputes, one has to approach the Civil Court. As the 4th respondent has already instituted a suit in O.S. No.230/2011, the parties could agitate their rights in the said suit.
7. With regard to the contention that without allowing the I.A. filed to come on record as legal representatives of late Nekkanti Veeranna, the final order is passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner, the learned Single Judge has observed that the same will have no serious consequence. As the learned Single Judge has observed that the name of the 4th respondent shown in the revenue records would be subject to the result of O.S. No.230/2011, the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the parties will have to get adjudicated their rights in the pending civil suit. Any entry in the record of rights would be subject to the out come of the suit. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Cs/-* CT:bms